Right to Travel Court Cites

suijuris · #1 02-15-2004, 04:33 PM

Please add any good cites you may find re right to travel here...

If you have any questions re the cites, please start a new thread to keep this uncluttered.

Regards,

Sui Juris

suijuris · #2 02-15-2004, 04:53 PM

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221

The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.

In Hertado v. California, 110 US 516, the U.S Supreme Court states:

"The state cannot diminish rights of the people."

And in Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60,

"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void."

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice." Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, at 489.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;...shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the Contrary not one word withstanding."

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution..."

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of constitutional rights." Sherer v. Cullen, 481 F 946

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

The term "public highway," in its broad popular sense, includes toll roads -- any road which the public have a "RIGHT" to use even conditionally, though in a strict legal sense it is restricted to roads which are wholly public. See: Weirich v. State, 140 Wis. 98.

Even the legislature has no power to deny to a Citizen the "RIGHT" to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, through this "RIGHT" might be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 N.E. 22

"Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, sign, etc., NOT a privilege that requires permission, i.e.; licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc..

The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE, but a "COMMON AND FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT" of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived. See: Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, supra; Ligare v. Chicago, 28 N.E. 934; Boone v. Clark, 214 S.W. 607; American Jurisprudence 1st Ed., Highways 163

[T]he streets and highways belong to the public, for the use of the public in the ordinary and customary manner. See: Hadfield v. Lundin, 98 Wn. 657; 168 P. 516;

All those who travel upon, and transport their property upon, the public highways, using the ordinary conveyance of today, and doing so in the usual and ordinary course of life and business. See: Hadfield, supra; State v. City of Spokane, 109 Wn. 360; 186 P. 864.

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of one who makes the highways his place of business and uses it for private gain .... See: State v. City of Spokane, supra.

[F]or while a Citizen has the "RIGHT" to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that "RIGHT" does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for private gain. For the latter purposes no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a MERE PRIVILEGE or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion .... See: Hadfield, supra; State v. Johnson, 243 P. 1073; Cummins v. Jones, 155 P. 171; Packard v. Banton, 44 S.Ct. 257, 264 U.S. 140 and other cases too numerous to mention.

I am not particularly interested about the rights of haulers by contract, or otherwise, but I am deeply interested in the "RIGHTS" of the public to use the public highways freely for all lawful purposes. See: Robertson v. Department of Public Works, 180 Wash. 133 at 139

It is not the amount of travel, the extent of the use of a highway by the public that distinguishes it from a private way or road. It is the "RIGHT" to so use or travel upon it, not its exercise. See: ? Ind 455, 461

The "RIGHT" of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is NOT a mere PRIVILEGE which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a "COMMON RIGHT" which he has under his right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with, not disturbing another's "RIGHTS," he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct. See: 11 American Jurisprudence 1st., Constitutional Law, 329, page 1123

In this connection it is well to keep in mind that, while the public has an absolute "RIGHT" to the use of the streets for their primary purpose, which is for travel, the use of the streets from the purpose of parking automobiles is a privilege, and not a "RIGHT"; and the privilege must be accepted with such reasonable burdens as the city may place as conditions to the exercise of the privilege. See: Gardner v. City of Brunswick, 28 S.E.2d 135

The Constitution of the State of Colorado, Article II, §3 provides that:

All persons have certain natural, essential and unalienable "RIGHTS," among which may be reckoned the "RIGHT" .... of acquiring, possessing and protecting property; ....

A motor vehicle is property and a person cannot be deprived of property without due process of law. The term: "property," within the meaning of the due process clause, includes the "RIGHT" to make full use of the property which one has the unalienable "RIGHT" to acquire.

Every Citizen has an unalienable "RIGHT" to make use of the public highways of the state; every Citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment of life and liberty. See: People v. Nothaus, 147 Colo. 210

Undoubtedly the "RIGHT" of locomotion, the "RIGHT" to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the "RIGHT," ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a "RIGHT" secured by the Fourteenth Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution. See: Williams v. Fears, 343 U.S. 270, 274

To secure their property was one of the great ends for which men entered into society. The "RIGHT" to acquire and own property, and to deal with it and use it as the owner chooses, so long as the use harms nobody, is a natural "RIGHT." It does not owe its origin to constitutions. It existed before them. It is a part of the Citizen's natural liberty -- an expression of his freedom, guaranteed as inviolate by every American Bill of "RIGHTS." See: Spann supra.

Consent -- In criminal Law. No act shall be deemed a crime if done with the consent of the party injured, unless it be committed in public, and is likely to provoke a breach of the peace, or tends to the injury of a third party; provided no consent can be given which will deprive the consenter of any unalienable "RIGHT." (Emphasis added). See: Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

It has been shown, still, that an individual's travel is a "RIGHT" and not a privilege. Thus, a mutual mistake has been made, and the "contract" is void. See: Deibel v. Kreiss, 50 N.E.2d 1000 (1943)

suijuris · #3 03-04-2004, 11:53 AM

Evidently Congress regards the act of "driving" as a commercial venture:

Driving automobile between states is "transportation in interstate commerce." Hostetter v. U. S., C.C.A.8 (Colo.) 1926, 16 F.2d 921.

Paul88 · #4 03-08-2004, 10:00 PM

I sent all that stuff to court for my tickets. I have to fight 8 tickets in the state of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:State w:st="on"><st1

lace w:st="on">New Jersey</st1

lace></st1:State>. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>

2 Speeding tickets<o

></o

>

2. reckless driving<o

></o

>

1 careless driving<o

></o

>

1 Windows tint<o

></o

>

1 Illegal exhaust<o

></o

>

1 No seatbelt<o

></o

>

No one was hurt and I sent many documents to the court and they sent everything back with a new court date. I don't know what to do next but I will try to fight it in court. Not sure what route to take. Should I go with my right to travel and I was not traveling in commerce?

Paul88 · #5 03-08-2004, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuiJuris

Evidently Congress regards the act of "driving" as a commercial venture: Driving automobile between states is "transportation in interstate commerce." Hostetter v. U. S., C.C.A.8 (Colo.) 1926, 16 F.2d 921.

But you do have driver license don't you? So that automatically puts you in their law. You agreed to their terms. This is the problem I think I will have when I'm in court. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>

Ice · #6 03-08-2004, 10:19 PM

NO SIR!!

You have the license JUST IN CASE YOU DO TRAVEL IN COMMERCE.& But, in this instance you WERE NOT in commerce.

Did the cop ask you if you were in commerce??& I'll bet he didn't.

&

Jerseee · #7 03-09-2004, 08:27 AM

Paul88,

Ice has a very very good point, which should be considered.& As simple as that statement is--it is just as potent a point that can be made.& Boy, i wish i knew this stuff before---the courts would have never gotten to me so easily.

#8 03-09-2004, 07:51 PM

Paul88,

& I myself have not had the opportunity to try this as none of the conveyances I own have the capability to go much above the speed limit, but I am curious to see if it would work. "I am not giving legal advice, just my opinion". Here goes-Now that you know that you are Traveling and not operating in commerce upon the highways, the issue will be dealing with the court. Since the one who asserts a position is the one who bears the burden of proof, it might be prudent to file with the clerk of court, an affidavit stating that you were not engaged in any commercial activity and you were&Traveling as your right. Once that is accomplished and you are in court, get the charging officer on the stand and get him to testify, under oath, that as an officer it is his job to&know the laws he is enforcing,and that it is his duty to properly enforce those laws. Once he has testified to that Then get him to testify he witnessed you "driving". Once he has, you can point out to the Judge (administrative magistrate), utilizing your affidavit(s) and applicable definitions within the "Motor Vehicle Code"-(i.e.-Motor Vehicle,Vehicle,Driver,Operator etc.)&that unless the prosecution can "prove that you were engaged in commerce",the officer has perjured himself. It would seem that&at that point they have hung themselves with their own rope and you could& move for dismissal with prejudice. --As I said I haven't tried it, but it seems it should work, or at the very least give them a good case of heartburn!.:twisted:

Paul88 · #9 03-13-2004, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LT2DOGS

Paul88,

& I myself have not had the opportunity to try this as none of the conveyances I own have the capability to go much above the speed limit, but I am curious to see if it would work. "I am not giving legal advice, just my opinion". Here goes-Now that you know that you are Traveling and not operating in commerce upon the highways, the issue will be dealing with the court. Since the one who asserts a position is the one who bears the burden of proof, it might be prudent to file with the clerk of court, an affidavit stating that you were not engaged in any commercial activity and you were&Traveling as your right. Once that is accomplished and you are in court, get the charging officer on the stand and get him to testify, under oath, that as an officer it is his job to&know the laws he is enforcing,and that it is his duty to properly enforce those laws. Once he has testified to that Then get him to testify he witnessed you "driving". Once he has, you can point out to the Judge (administrative magistrate), utilizing your affidavit(s) and applicable definitions within the "Motor Vehicle Code"-(i.e.-Motor Vehicle,Vehicle,Driver,Operator etc.)&that unless the prosecution can "prove that you were engaged in commerce",the officer has perjured himself. It would seem that&at that point they have hung themselves with their own rope and you could& move for dismissal with prejudice. --As I said I haven't tried it, but it seems it should work, or at the very least give them a good case of heartburn!.

:twisted:

I did send the document to the court and they sent everything back to me. I guess I just have to go to court ad see what will happen.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o

></o

>

Ice · #10 03-13-2004, 04:32 PM

Have you seen the "no licenses" stuff provided by Akira in the Download section?

Good stuff.

&